I am glad that nominations for the managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have closed without an African being nominated.
Despite media chatter in South Africa, Trevor Manuel was not nominated and has said he did not want the position because he has much work to do in South Africa. Africa should not seek to lead the IMF in its present unreformed form, but should rather seek to be a major voice in debates for fundamental structural reform of global financial systems.
As for the candidate from Mexico, which, in a very loose sense, represents what is called emerging markets, apparently there is reluctance to support him because of what are said to be his conservative views. He is a former deputy managing director of the IMF, which is infamous for imposing structural adjustment programmes that have not served Africa’s poor very well.
It was tempting for Africa to bid for the position. It lacks power in global institutions — not just in the IMF but also in the World Bank, the World Trade Organisation and the United Nations (Africa has no Security Council seat). Libya and Côte d’Ivoire are recent dramatic examples of this powerlessness; essentially, as former president Thabo Mbeki recently lamented, African institutions are disregarded.
Some Africans think the way to address this imbalance is to lead such institutions and become part of those who make decisions. They are mistaken. The issue is not which individual leads the institution; rather, it is the way these institutions are configured to serve particular interests. Occupying positions without changing the power dynamics that create the dominant few and the marginal majority is not a solution.
An African leader would have to implement policies and decisions that do not benefit Africa. In the present context of troubled European economies, the focus is on rescuing what should now be called the submerging markets of Europe.
A key reason why Africans should seek reform of the IMF before seeking to lead it is that it has a history of inflicting economic and social pain on Africans through structural adjustment programmes — wryly called “suffering of the African people” by Africans.
These programmes, often imposed or invited by African elites, open the door for further domination of African economies in the name of investment by the dominant northern economies, including former colonisers. They seek to orient African economies towards outward exploitation, not the realisation of the socioeconomic needs of the majority.
They remake African economies as subservient. Africans should seek structural reform of the IMF and other global financial institutions so that they pursue policies and decisions that enable Africa to attain its development goals.
Africans should understand that the present dominant shareholders, who represent particular interests, will not make fair policy decisions simply because an African leads the body. Further, these Africans do not seem to realise that the IMF’s policy Âprescriptions have contributed to a closure of genuine debate about alternative economic policies.
Democracy without genuine deliberation is a farce — and the prelude to dictatorship. It contradicts the West’s call for Africans to embrace democratic politics; that is, open to policy debates by cordoning off debate on economic choices or by insisting that any debate occurs within a market paradigm.
An African agenda should be a consistent call for radical reform of global financial institutions and the United Nations. A good start would be to reform shareholding and voting rights. The campaign should also focus on the need for genuine deliberation on economic choices not constrained by Western normative frameworks.
Reformed global financial institutions would have to think beyond a world dominated by the West. The emergence of China as an economic powerhouse, despite its denial of political freedoms, Âchallenges Western notions of how the rest of the world should develop.
In a reformed context, Africa’s development options would be considered beyond a narrow discourse about a choice between foreign direct investment and donor aid. The commitment of the northern economies to radical reforms of these institutions to ensure global economic justice is doubtful, even if they tacitly admit that things should be different.
It seems they want to cling to the privileges that have made their countries wealthy and created socioeconomically viable societies. African demands for reform are not just moral protestations about injustice — they are also about a vision of a different world in which there is an equitable distribution of resources and environmental sustainability.
Africans must also begin the Âcolossal but necessary task of strengthening their own economic institutions and structures to serve the socioeconomic interests of the majority. It does not help Africa’s case for radical reform of global financial institutions if African Âleaders are involved in large-scale corruption and mismanagement of resources.
It will take sacrifice among the African policy elites and leaders to align themselves to the economic interests of the majority of the African people, not just those of a Western-oriented middle class. For leaders who want to embrace a radical agenda there are grave Âpolitical dangers.
The best support system for African leaders who pursue genuine radical reforms at home and globally is to fully embrace Âdemocratic politics. It allows for open, inclusive and participatory decision-making, respects differences, believes in economic justice and is accountable in all respects. Posturing at the African Union or the UN about Western domination will not do it.
Tawana Kupe is dean of humanities at the University of the Witwatersrand